I call for reconsideration. There was also some controversy about whether or not a barring attempt made after the calling of the CFJ worked. This judgement should resolve that.
On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Juge's arguments for CFJ 3523: > > As the caller argues, "TTttPF" (this time to the Public Forum) has a very > specific meaning and effect. It causes the actions that would have been > taken > had the quoted message been originally sent to the public forum to be > taken. > Despite being defined by no rule, game custom makes its meaning clear to > all > players. The question here is whether other, less established forms may > have > similar effect. "TTttPF" is a creature entirely of convention. It has > effect > because all players understand what it means. The message here could not, > in context, be reasonably misunderstood. I therefore rule that it has > effect, > but only in this particular instance. There are other cases where the > phrasing > could be misunderstood. For example, what if the player took other actions > in the new message? Then the meaning could be "this action didn't work, and > I've changed my mind and am doing other actions". Unlikely, but possible. > I thus > rule that the established phrasing should be preferred for its lack of > ambiguity, and this case's phrasing succeeded because, in context, it > lacked > any other reasonable interpretation. TRUE. >
